Pakistan to Iran, a detour from Bangladesh
-Illustration by Tahir Mehdi.
If you happen to be in Lahore these days, you will empathise with my lost sense of direction. Almost all the important roads are dug up to clear the way for the Turkish bus transport system; your knowledge of the narrow Lahori side streets is a life saver these days. The Chief Minister of Punjab is emulating the brother Islamic country’s urban transport model and is betting on it to win him another tenure. ‘Cheating’ among the post-colonial wannabe nation-states is quite common.
Marcos in Philippines, Pinochet in Chile and Ziaul Haq in Pakistan did not impose their undemocratic and brutal rules in the same era by coincidence. You also cannot leave it to the theory of chance that Aquino was assassinated by Marcos, Allende killed during Pinochet’s take over and Bhutto hanged by Zia; and that then people in the Philippines first elected Aquino’s wife and then his son (the current president), Allende’s daughter is a serving senator and well, the Bhutto ‘dynasty’ you know all about. So global powers, local elites and the people across the globe have been behaving in somewhat similar ways or have they been copying each other?
For some in Pakistan, there is an urgent need to copy what they term ‘the Bangladesh model’. It implies a long caretaker government underwritten by pious judges and run by delivering economists while the generals smile overhead in their well-starched spotless uniforms. But haven’t we been served with this biryani before? What is different in the recipe this time around?
In nascent democracies, holding elections in a manner that is acceptable to all and then managing peaceful transition from one elected government to another is a major challenge. Bangladesh too, had trouble with transitions. It first hit a road block in 1990 when President General (R) Ershad was forced to quit. Someone considered a non-partisan had to fill the vacuum till the elections and everyone agreed to make the chief justice the head of the interim setup, the transition was managed successfully. But since it was a temporary arrangement with no constitutional standing, the transition again became an issue when the elections were due in 1996. Following a crisis spanning months, an amendment to the Constitution was made to provide for a senior judge-led caretaker government. It worked in next elections held in 2001 too, but itself became a problem by the next elections scheduled for January 2007.
There was no agreement on the appointment of any justice as the caretaker prime minister. All the possible candidate judges now had become or were propagated as partisan by opposing parties. Many believe that the army maneuvered and exacerbated the crisis to make way for and justify its latter interventions. To break the deadlock, the President appointed himself as the caretaker prime minister, but he too was elected president by one of the two major parties and thus, was not considered above par. Days later he had to relinquish the caretaker post resulting in the further deepening of the constitutional crisis.
Then finally, the Army flew in a Chief Advisor – Fakharuddin Ahmed, an ‘IMF-educated’ economist set to overhaul Bangladesh’s sputtering economics and feuding polity. The not-so-thinly-veiled rule of the military got the tenure of his dummy Chief Advisor extended beyond its constitutional term and mandate. It promised elections only after fixing the corrupt politicians. They toyed with ideas like the minus-two formula (the two main parties without their known heads), exiling leaders to Saudi Arabia, ‘NABing’ politicians etc, but accomplished nothing. The long caretaker finally had to cut short its tenure and ambitions. The two main parties came back again, headed by the same old ‘corrupt’ leaders, and the general elections in December 2008 brought Awami League to power.
The country will go to polls again in early 2014. The incumbent government has undone the constitutional amendment that provided for the setting up of an interim caretaker government as many parties had started seeing it as a constitutional window available to the military to misuse.
So in Pakistan, we are talking, thanks to free-media, about a Bangladesh model that the Bangladeshi establishment had found useless and its political parties declared it dangerous and discarded it. But it was a mere talk till it qualified to the status of a conspiracy when Qadri marched on to Islamabad. Many saw that talk walking and shuddered at a creeping coup. The hype has subsided but oblique references to an extra-constitutional intervention persists. If Qadri’s demands and the agreement with the government are an indication of the direction of such an intervention, it does not lead you to Bangladesh. It in fact guides you to Iran. So take a u-turn.
Hello Iran! Iran has a quasi democratic system. It regularly holds elections to the office of president, parliament and local governments. But it has a Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council too. What do the two do?
Ruhallah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian revolution of 1979 was the first Supreme Leader. Another senior clergyman, Ali Khamenie was elected as the president for the first two terms (1981 to 1989) under the new Islamic Constitution. Khamenie was elevated to the position of Supreme Leader after the death of Khomeini in 1989. He still occupies that office which means that Ali Khamenie is at the highest echelon of power in Iran since the last 34 years. He has all the powers that the Shah of Iran used to enjoy, in fact more, as the Supreme Leader claims to have a divine sanction too. The cleric king is the envy of ulema across the Muslim world, sectarian differences aside.
The Supreme Leader makes all the important appointments – the army chief, the chief justice, the heads of radio and television and is authorised to declare war or peace. He also appoints six ulema to the 12-member Guardian Council. The other six, who have to be lawyers, are nominated by the chief justice and vetted by the parliament.
The Guardian Council is thus a forum of appointed (not elected by the people) clergymen and jurists. The Council defines the boundary within which democracy is allowed to exist in Iran. No act of parliament can become a law without their approval; they are vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and then they ‘supervise’ all elections, which means that they scrutinise all the candidates before allowing voters to choose one from them. The powerful clerics and jurists of Iran decide who is pious enough to contest an election. They use their powers frequently and blatantly and in most elections the majority of the candidates are screened out and the voters are asked to choose either this conservative or that conservative.
Iran’s Islamic Constitution came into effect in December 1979, that was the time when Jamaat-i-Islami’s legal draftsmen in Pakistan had occupied the room next to President General Zia’s office at GHQ for Islamising our Constitution. The rulers in both the countries shared a passion for limiting people’s choices in the name of Islam and for pre-selecting candidates on moral and religious grounds. Iran institutionalised a full system to that end while Pakistan made additions to Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution that set the same standards but did not put a practical system in place. Our poor country has to do a lot of catching up, if it is not too late already. So, is it the Bangladesh model or the Iran model that some fear might surface in Pakistan?
The writer works with Punjab Lok Sujag, a research and advocacy group that has a primary interest in understanding governance and democracy.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
Very interesting observation.
The essay is an exaggeration to the highest limits when it tries to creat a resemblance between articles 62 +63 and the Iranian theological rule. The requirements noted in articles 62 and 63 are actually no different then what is required of candidates to national parliments in the western countries. The only difference I could, for example, find in the qualification parameters in pakistani consititution as compared to some West European countries, is lack of defination of the termenology used in wording of article 62 and 63. Otherwise no defaulter, tax evader, one with criminal record etc is allowed to contest elections in any country with an established democracy. A person with any criminal conviction, be it a minor one, is allowed to take even the lowest of the governmental jobs for 5 years.
now i get the key to be a certified INTELLECTUAL,,,,,,, just thrash your own Army, and there you stand in the cue of wise people,,, well done
Long Narrative, too many words, too little substance. One may want to read this during prolonged period boredom.
One major mistake commited by the author is that while discussing iranian system he doesnt mentioned that iran’s supreme leader is also under check of Assembly of experts( Council of Experts, is a deliberative body of Mujtahids (Islamic scholars) that is charged with electing and removing the Supreme Leader of Iran and supervising his activities. Members of the assembly are elected from lists of candidates by direct public vote for eight-year terms)…Soo in iran its total democracy people are the supreme..lack of knowledge and biased propaganda by westren media outlets made us to realize that islamic system of iran wants to limit people choices in iran…
“group that has a primary interest in understanding governance and democracy.”
Do you even understand?
‘The Supreme Leader has all the powers of the Shah…’ except writing any laws, setting government budgets/taxes, and, oh, yeah, deciding that he isn’t going to leave office if the Iranian people through their elected representatives (the Assembly) decide he isn’t doing his job in their best interest. One should point out that even in that ‘bastion of democracy’, the US, the Judiciary branch of government (in the Iranian system, the Judiciary, like the Legislative, branch of government has an executive segment that theoretically bosses the branch, but effectively has to negotiate and compromise with the ‘lower’ levels) is not elected, because having to give short term political considerations priority makes for bad legal decisions (in the US example, think the SC would have outlawed segregation if the judges had had to consider how that ruling would affect their chances at the polls a year or two later?) In the end, the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes, and that ‘quasi-democratic theocracy’ that the author so disparages is both stable and rated, by the population that lives under it, as very democratic (public opinion polls of Iranians and Americans about how democratic their own governments are produce results that are within the margin of error of each other)
Neither Iran nor Bangladesh but we are going to crash no matter what come next (elections or any so called care-taker set up)
Tahir, neither Iranian (Islamic) nor Bangladeshi (Army) model is suitable for Pakistan. We should be looking at the civilian society for solution instead of giving powers to ‘Army Club’ or ‘SC Judges Club’. Today we have Iftikhar Chaudhry who can be neutral and honest but what about 20 years down the road? What if the next SC Judge appointed by some party wants to show his loyalty? With Khomeini model the entire system is open to manipulation and revolves around one person.
Neither model has any hope of being successful in the long run. A successful model should be reliant on civilians and be independent. Manipulation and underhanded tactics are bound to happen during the election process, the best we can do is minimize them. The idea shouldn’t be to achieve perfection but maximum transparency. Even U.S. election process isn’t spared from manipulation. I still remember the 2001 election between Gore-Bush. Similar allegations were made during Bush-Kerry run.
You are right about the pitfalls and limitations of the Khomeni model – best avoided.
I am surprised you haven’t received a lengthy rebuttal on that particular issue
A nation never thankful. Think about the long term affects. Development does come with the cost. China did it US is upgrading it all the time. Vancouver subway construction created a lot of problems but we were happy about the after affect. Hang in there and thank them at least.
we have to vote for Imran if we want change in 2013.
We should welcom the Iran model but temper it with justice and rule of law more so than religion. i.e make the ECP independent and make it much more powerful to screen candidates with set of criteria. Make the President directly elected. Abolish Position of PM and instead have house majoritiy leader. Introduce promotional system for elected office eg. making prior holding of lower elected office mandatory for candidency for higher elected office- thus introducing a system of incremental experiance and knowledge. The senate to be directly elected and senators to be ex jurists etc. and depoliticise ALL state institutions especially the Police. Problem of Pakistan solved forever.
for me Iranian way is the way to go! If democracy mean westernization then I reject democracy. Democracy must be implemented but within bounds of Islamic laws
interesting comparisons.
However, what is the problem to conduct the elections when the incumbent govt. is still in House, as is practiced in India.
Very good article, nicely written and exposing our vulnerability to imitate rather than innovate
The problem with Pakistan is that we like to talk too much and do little,yada yada yada yada.